9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to as "the Board") vide letter dated 25.03.1992 allotted Flat No. 116, Type B on the First Floor to the Respondent - Complainant. The Board issued a Provisional Allotment letter dated 23.04.1992 informing the Respondent - Complainant that the cost of the flat was Rs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in the instalments as specified. It is an admitted position that the Respondent - Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,67,750 in four instalments. 2.2. The Board issued letter dated 24.06.1995 whereby the Respondent - Complainant was allotted another flat, in lieu of the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment had been made. The Respondent - Complainant was informed that the cost of the flat was Rs. 5,90,000. Since the Respondent - Complainant was not willing to pay the final cost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of the amount deposited by her. 2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 after deducting Rs. 3,937 deposited by the Respondent - Complainant. 2.4. The Respondent - Complainant made a representation to the Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, and also Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount deposited from the date of payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Consumer Forum. (ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellant-complainant further sum of Rs. 50,000/as compensation for deficiency in service on their part. (iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the Appellant-complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/towards cost of the litigation incurred by her." The 'consumer dispute' stood finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 which conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties. 2.9. The Respondent - Complainant filed Execution Application No. 2 of 2014 before the District Forum. The Respondent - Complainant claimed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,58,749 towards execution of the Order dated 19.09.2012 passed by this Court. Both parties submitted their Memo of calculation before the District Forum. The District Forum vide Order dated 16.08.2014 held that the Memo of calculation filed by the Respondent - Complainant was partly correct, and directed the Appellant - Board to make an additional payment of Rs. 1,07,057. The Board satisfied the Decree by payment of the sum of Rs. 1,07,057 vide Demand Draft dated 09.09.2014. 2.10. On 22.09.2014, the Respondent - Complainant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that: 3.1. A Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act. The revisional jurisdiction exercised by the National Commission is wide, and intended to encompass all proceedings before the State Commissions. 3.2. The intent of Section 21(b) is clearly to provide revisional jurisdiction to the National Commission, over the State Commission. The reference under Section 21(b) is specifically to orders passed in any consumer dispute which is pending before, or has been decided by any State Commission. 3.3. The phrase "consumer dispute" under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act must be understood to mean any dispute which arises under the 1986 Act. 3.4. Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original proceedings i.e. the Consumer Complaint. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of this Court in Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda Ramakrishnayya & Ors. (1963) 2 SCR 499. 4. On the other hand, the Respondent who appeared in person, inter alia contended that : 4.1. A Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act, against an order of the State Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. " (emphasis supplied) The National Commission has : (i) original jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services exceeds rupees one crore; (ii) jurisdiction to entertain appeals against Orders of any State Commission; and (iii) supervisory jurisdiction over any State Commission in any "consumer dispute" pending or decided by a State Commission, which is challenged on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction. 6.2. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) by the National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been filed before the State Commission Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 14 SCC 161.. The jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only in case of a "consumer dispute" filed before the State Commission. The National Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) is concerned about the correctness or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontinuation of suit or of original proceeding. When the aid of revisional court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute." (emphasis supplied) 6.5. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decision making process of the fora below. 7. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission u/S. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of 'consumer dispute' before the State Commission. 7.1. The consumer dispute, in the present case, had already been finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated from the execution of the final order passed by this Court. 7.2. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission. Section 25(3) states : 25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission. (3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the substantive dispute. 7.8. There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. 7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant - Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings. 8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore, the National Commission modified the decree passed by this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
